Hunter Power Project (Kurri Kurri Power Station)

I have two young sons. They will be 32 and 30 in 2050. My age now. I want them to be healthy and safe and have the same opportunities I have.

This project is incompatible with our climate targets. The same money would buy extensive energy efficiency retrofits for 24,000 homes, making the inhabitants more comfortable in summer and cosy in winter, while lowering demand on the grid.

Methane has a global warming potential of 86 over 20 years. We should be scaling down its use, not building more gas infrastructure!

The recent report by the International Energy Agency, which found that the world shouldn’t invest in any new gas or oil if we want to meet the climate change goals of the Paris Agreement.
Gas is polluting and expensive, while battery-backed renewable energy is cheaper, cleaner and doesn’t drive catastrophic climate change!
The New South Wales Government should know that this power station is a terrible idea, and that they don’t need to follow Scott Morrison to the cliff he is leading them down. We as a community cannot understand that we are GOING BACKWARDS AS A COUNTRY in view of what is happening world wide.
The health of the community is also at stake.
It’s a terrible waste of money and it is not necessary! And by the way it is the Taxpayers money being WASTED YET AGAIN!

The International Energy Agency state that the world should not invest in ANY new2 gas or oil projects.

This project is not necessary. It should be refused. Please see my written submission (attached) for a short selection of quotes from various experts who are unanimous that this project is an expensive, polluting dud.

The recent report by the International Energy Agency advised that there should be NO new investment in oil or gas if we want to meet the climate change goals of the Paris Agreement, which I believe to be the minimum required. I understand other experts also see this project as a bad investment in terms of the money involved and the very small peaking contribution it will make. The money can be better spent on a mix of batteries, small scale pumped hydro and expansion of renewable generation. I can't see how this investment aligns with the excellent NSW Electricity Infrastructure Roadmap.

Do NOT waste our tax dollars on this prehistoric project. Gas is NOT the way of the future. Think globally, act locally.

I object to the Hunter PowerProject (Kurri KurriPower Station.
Australia must meet the goals of the Paris Agreement which means we cannot create any new fossil fuel extractions.
This project is deemed 'Critical State Infrastructure', but what is critical is for Australia not to be a pariah state, and be left behind with stranded assets and well behind economically in the critical progress towards a rapid movement to 100% renewable energy and storage.
Gas is worse than coal. It poisons the earth and our water courses, (toxic leachate from the evaporation ponds in the Pilliga Forest prove the threat of this project). The pipelines cause destruction of groundwater courses and rivers. Gas creates fugitive emissions of methane gas an even more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.The recent medical reports the terrible health problems by heating and cooking with gas. The much cheaper, healthier energy comes with renewable solar, wind and tidal energy , with rapidly increasing efficiency in battery storage.

Backed by impeccable science, the UN has made it clear that there should be no new gas or coal fired power stations if the world is to avoid catastrophic climate change. The Australian Government, alone among western democracies, is acting against this advice. This is madness, particularly as renewables are now cheaper and of course so much safer. We should not waste large sums of money on what is likely to become a stranded asset.

The justification for this project is flawed. Fossil fuel projects that do not stack up should be refused.

On behalf of the Centre for Air pollution, energy and health Research (CAR), we strongly object to the development of the Hunter Power Station (Kurri Kurri Power Station) based on health grounds. Proceeding with the development of the Kurri Kurri Power Station will create direct and indirect short-, medium- and long-term human health impacts that are disproportionate to the benefits the power station purports to offer.

Please see my attached submission

I object to the project.
It is a waste of taxpayers’ money to pay for a plant that will not run very often, uses expensive dirty fuel diesel and gas, will increase our carbon emissions, cause more damage to our climate and pollution for the residents of Kurri Kurri. The Kurri Kurri proposal is a poor investment decision and so private investors aren’t interested. So please don’t waste more public money building this plant.
Any shortage in power after Liddell closes will be met with renewables, batteries, pumped solar and good planning, and these projects are in the pipeline. Both AGL and Origin are planning large batteries in the Hunter Valley as battery prices continue to fall. There a number of pumped hydro projects already planned in NSW. Gas is not needed.
Gas power is very expensive. When Tomago Aluminium complained recently about power shortages they chose to reduce production rather than pay the super high price of power from the Colongara gas plant, just south of Newcastle, not far from Kurri Kurri. If the Colongara gas power plant is a rarely used, expensive to run white elephant why is a second one a good idea? It isn’t.
Gas, oil and coal need to be phased out to prevent irreversible damage to our climate. So new fossil fuel projects must be halted. Building a new plant to run on diesel and gas is an irresponsible act.
The EIS doesn’t require any response regarding carbon emissions from this project. This is evidence of very poor planning by our governments. Our state government has targets and the federal government has committed to the Paris accord but there is no requirement for new projects to align with the targets or the accord. Therefore, this process needs an urgent review before deciding on any emissions producing project including the Kurri Kurri Power Station.
To sum up I am strongly against this project as
-there are renewable, battery and pumped hydro projects coming on line to provide electricity when Liddell closes.
-Colongara gas plant already exists not far from Kurri Kurri and it is barely used because it is too expensive.
-gas is just too expensive.
-the Hunter Power Plant will run on diesel and gas. Both contributes heavily to climate damage and we need to urgently move away from fossil fuels.
-the Hunter Power Plant makes no business sense so private business doesn't wish to be involved.
-tax payers money should be used sensibly and this makes no sense.
-the people of the Kurri Kurri area do not need more air pollution.

I wish to object to the Hunter Power Project (Kurri Kurri Power Station) due to reasons of wasting exorbitant taxpayer money and being in direct opposition to climate change goals. Reference to the recent report by the International Energy Agency, found that the world shouldn’t invest in any new gas or oil if we want to meet the climate change goals of the Paris Agreement. We have much cheaper and cleaner battery-backed renewable energy whilst gas plants are polluting and expensive
As state government has final say on this project we don't need to follow Scott Morrisons disastrous leadership towards a climate emergency
It’s a terrible waste of money and it is not necessary!
Please act now to save our planet
Mary Watson

The recent report by the International Energy Agency, found that the world shouldn’t invest in any new gas or oil if we want to meet the climate change goals of the Paris Agreement. I am concerned for the state of the world's climate that my six grandchildren will inherit.

1. It's unnecessary - there is enough new renewable generation coming on line, and by its own admission will be used 2% of the time.
2. It's a waste of taxpayer funds - renewables are cheaper to build and will be on line more often.
3. It's a greenhouse emitter - we can't afford the emissions.
4. It's a sop to the gas lobby - more politics than substance, and that is a failure of good governance.

The International Energy Agency have closely examined the evidence from 100s of Climate Change Studies, Reports and data have stated that no country should be investing in any new gas or oil ventures. If new Fossil Fuel ventures are commenced there is no way that the world can reduce the amount of Green house Gases entering the atmosphere and therefore it will be impossible to prevent the average Global Temperatures from increasing by more than 1.5C.
This would mean more Catastrophic fires at ever increasing frequencies, more destruction of Flora and fauna and more human fatalities as well as poorer health and increasing hospital admissions. All of the latter leads to huge pressures on the public purse and business.
Gas is also highly polluting and expensive compared to the Renewable alternatives. Investment in the renewable sector as well as in batteries and the related industries (EV cars & their component parts) will create 1000s of jobs and enable a transition from those employed in fossil fuel industry. Germany has been very successful in creating 10 of 1000s of jobs in the Renewable sector & moving workers into theses new jobs!! If other countries can do it so can we & in particular so can our state!!

I object to the project as it could produce emissions of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) which will increase the incidence of cancer in nearby residents. The Air Quality Impact Assessment is unsubstantiated with regard to PAH emissions.

There is no monitoring of PAH, PM10 and PM25 emissions in the vicinity of the stacks. This should be mandatory.

The project will also produce greenhouse gasses, and a battery bank would be a better alternative to reduce Climate Change.

The EIS (Hunter Power Project Appendix K, Air Quality Impact Assessment) does not stipulate the specifications of the gas turbines and which types of filters, if any, will be used for PAH, PM10 and PM25 emissions. Modeling is done for the proposed “two industrial frame heavy duty F-Class gas turbine units in open cycle gas turbine configuration ”, and this may change for the final plant. So there is no guarantee that PAH, PM10 and PM25 emissions will be less than NEPN standards. This EIS is meaningless without defined specifications of the machinery to be used, and test results for similar installations. There is no guarantee the plant and machinery purchased will perform to the specifications used to determine the air quality assessments.

Based on US EPA figures for gas turbines, PAH emissions from the flues are likely to be 0.4ng/cum for distillate, and a factor of 20 fold lower for gas. The level for distillate is above the Air Toxics NEPM monitoring investigation level (MIL) of 0.3ng/cum. Although low, these levels are high enough to cause a significant increase in cancer cases in the surrounding populations, and with the right wind conditions could add to the PAH and PM25 levels in Sydney. PAH levels are increasing worldwide in air and watercourses, and are considered by many scientists to be the major environmental carcinogen causing tracheal, lung, oesophageal, liver and bladder cancer (see attachment “PAHs the new asbestos”).

The EIS does not show the type of gas or diesel distillate used, the level of purification, or assay results for fuel PAH’s. There are no test results for PAHs and PM25 particle emissions when burning specified gas and diesel. Estimates from the proposed “two
industrial frame heavy duty F-Class gas turbine units in open cycle gas turbine configuration” have been used to model the emissions, but these are not disclosed as they are “commercial and in confidence”.

I feel it is wrong to base an EIS on these estimates when people’s lives and future cancer cases are at stake.

To whom it may concern,
I am writing with respect in objection to the construction of the Kurri Kurri power station. In the current state the world is in with regard to climate change along with the available scientific knowledge and technology the federal government's decision to construct a gas fired power station is certainly not environmentally or future focused. I have a young family and am continually plagued by the uncertainty that the future most certainly holds for their generation. The federal government's recluse investment in unsustainable energy certainly does not inspire confidence in a strong future for this country.

We do not need more gas - we need renewables.

Please see the attached submission for further details.